Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39438330›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2025

Large language models for structured reporting in radiology: past, present, and future.

Felix Busch, Lena Hoffmann, Daniel Pinto Dos Santos, Marcus R Makowski, Luca Saba, Philipp Prucker, Martin Hadamitzky, Nassir Navab, Jakob Nikolas Kather, Daniel Truhn and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Multidisciplinary attitudes towards LLM-structured oncologic CT reports: a prospective fixed-sequence questionnaire study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Structured reporting in knee MRI.Skeletal radiology · 2026
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Felix BuschSchool of Medicine and Health, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. felix.busch@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9770-8555
Lena HoffmannSchool of Medicine and Health, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Daniel Pinto Dos SantosInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Marcus R MakowskiSchool of Medicine and Health, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Luca SabaDepartment of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria (A.O.U.), Cagliari, Italy.
Philipp PruckerSchool of Medicine and Health, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Martin HadamitzkySchool of Medicine and Health, Institute for Cardiovascular Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, German Heart Center Munich, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Nassir NavabChair for Computer Aided Medical Procedures & Augmented Reality, TUM School of Computation, Information and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jakob Nikolas KatherDepartment of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Daniel TruhnDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Renato CuocoloDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, Baronissi, Italy.
Lisa C Adams *School of Medicine and Health, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Keno K Bressem *School of Medicine and Health, Institute for Cardiovascular Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, German Heart Center Munich, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Structured reporting (SR) has long been a goal in radiology to standardize and improve the quality of radiology reports. Despite evidence that SR reduces errors, enhances comprehensiveness, and increases adherence to guidelines, its widespread adoption has been limited. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a promising solution to automate and facilitate SR. Therefore, this narrative review aims to provide an overview of LLMs for SR in radiology and beyond. We found that the current literature on LLMs for SR is limited, comprising ten studies on the generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)-3.5 (n = 5) and/or GPT-4 (n = 8), while two studies additionally examined the performance of Perplexity and Bing Chat or IT5. All studies reported promising results and acknowledged the potential of LLMs for SR, with six out of ten studies demonstrating the feasibility of multilingual applications. Building upon these findings, we discuss limitations, regulatory challenges, and further applications of LLMs in radiology report processing, encompassing four main areas: documentation, translation and summarization, clinical evaluation, and data mining. In conclusion, this review underscores the transformative potential of LLMs to improve efficiency and accuracy in SR and radiology report processing. KEY POINTS: Question How can LLMs help make SR in radiology more ubiquitous? Findings Current literature leveraging LLMs for SR is sparse but shows promising results, including the feasibility of multilingual applications. Clinical relevance LLMs have the potential to transform radiology report processing and enable the widespread adoption of SR. However, their future role in clinical practice depends on overcoming current limitations and regulatory challenges, including opaque algorithms and training data.

Indexed as

RadiologyRadiology Information SystemsDocumentationHumansLarge Language ModelsArtificial intelligenceElectronic data processingMedical informaticsNatural language processingRadiology

Identifiers

PMID39438330
PMCPMC12021971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.